Causal invariance versus confluence with Jonathan Gorard

Causal invariance is one of the most important concepts in the Wolfram model... and one of the most difficult to capture.

So I really wanted to hear Jonathan Gorard’s take on it.

In this excerpt from our conversation, Jonathan addresses the differences between causal invariance and confluence.

Causal invariance means that regardless of the order in which a rule is applied to the hypergraph, the same events occur, with the same causal relationships between them.

Confluence, on the other hand, is the coming-together of different branches of the multiway graph.

Jonathan explores different ways we might determine whether two nodes, two edges or two hypergraphs are the same, and explains that if we identify nodes and edges according to their causal histories, then causal invariance and confluence become the same idea.

I’ve found myself listening to Jonathan’s explanation of causal invariance over and over to make sense of it, but it’s one of the areas where I’m convinced Jonathan has a unique contribution to make.

—

Jonathan Gorard

Concepts mentioned by Jonathan

—

Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

[NightmareCourtPictures]

Thank you! This stuff is so important...and interesting it just has me hooked.

It's funny cause it was this particular notion of graph isomorphism way back that I knew that when I stumbled on the Wolfram model, that it had to be right because graph isomorphism ensures Lorentz Symmetry (and also a bunch of other symmetries).

There is a scientist that had a similiar approach to this made many years ago, named Fotini Markopoulou. (video: Fotini Markopoulou on QUANTIZATION)

Her theory was like a precursory kind of idea to Wolfram's (lead me, like a trail of bread crumbs) She's worth looking into, for people that want to dive into this particular idea about networks and graphs, and how they ensure this notion of symmetry that Relativity is built on.

Little bit of history, she was pressured out of physics community and they wrote her off... did her pretty dirty, and she just left the field to do her own thing. I even got banned for bringing up one of her lectures on a physics forum too, to try to learn more about networks.

[kostoglotov]

Again a brilliant discussion and it makes complete sense. Thanks Mark.

[pipeorgan]

Thank you for another wonderful and informative talk. Like you I will need to listen to it a number of times for it all to fully sink in. Thanks also for all the Hyperlink references attached which will be very helpful to clarify and better understand the subject. Well done to you and Johnathan.

[fabienleguen]

Striking similarities with hashgraph distributed ledger technology. Wolfram hypergraph could maybe borrow some hashgraph tools to label nodes based on their causal history using hash function like sha256. It it very computer efficient and you are garranted to have a unique string of bits identifying your node.

[paulfoss]

The reason I give people is "it sometimes makes me sob uncontrollably" which is true, but my main reason is what research says about the health effects, but that would sound judgmental.

[harriehausenman]

Wow! Thanks for the insight. What a neat idea 😃

[gavinlangley]

A simple example of when something can be causally invariant and not exactly equivalent would be good! I can't see how that could possibly be true if each node/edge encodes it's own 'path' and so identity. Maybe if the order is not important in the path/identity such that nodes can eventually become coincide over different evolutions. I guess what I'm asking is invariance-in-respect-to what? Order of the application of rules?

[tommysullivan]

Yes! When I understood git and its blockchainy notion it seemed like a possible implementation for guaranteeing “consistent histories” for scientists who presumably exist as copies across many worlds

And also how to explain “spooky action at a distance” - it’s not an instant distant action; it’s entangled particles where people forget that it’s not until later, when scientists compare results of the measurements of remote entangled particles that they find the correlations of up vs down - the comparison after normal evolution of the separated systems within the speed of light - brings together many copies of scientist measurement pairs under normal relativity limits and then lo and behold, when two scientists come together somehow their results always match in the expected way one up one down… how can the universe know how to give those results at that moment in many worlds without some git like history or pointer within each system or node

[pollywops]

I couldnt understand until the blockchain comparance, its fantastic no? We don't have to argue or google or research anymore, reality is in the universal ledger node 😊 (not actually i know but I'm excited that i couldn't understand this video and then it clicked it's my favorite rush thanks)

[christian]

Is the project still active? I can't find any updates on YouTube any longer, nor on any of the websites.

[WillfullyWondering]

Listening to the lecture and spacing out. (Dozing off.)

Idfk:

Metaphorical FUBAR:
(Sounds nifty, but it makes me dizzy to think about.)

Sounds similar to planetary rotation through space as the solar system travels through space in a graph, but as wave patterns. Similar to a braided steel cable. Then spun around in a toroidal motion to run it back to itself. Synchronous motion causing the pieces to form an alignment and reassimilate. I'm tired, if this doesn't make sense don't be shocked.

Ultimately causing an endless output of... ????

-Random things my brain comes up

[ktrethewey]

Sadly, the introduction of Jonathan into your videos detracts from the excellent teaching level you yourself have adopted. Mark, you should stick to doing these explanations yourself.